Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Road Safety (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/road-safety/)

-   -   Are Global NCAP ratings reliable? (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/road-safety/260600-global-ncap-ratings-reliable-2.html)

The NCAP is out there. Make what you will of it. It is not a regulation in India. Rather, like a private quality standard. You can still buy a car that is untested or has low scores. But you are forewarned at least in some of the cases. Yes , NCAP should do a comprehensive testing of all models on sale, not pick and choose.

Thanks for posting this. Let me add, then, that neither the Scorpio-N, nor the Taigun deserve a 5-star rating, in my opinion.

'Marginal' protection should not have any place in a 5-star rating. GNCAP are degrading themselves by doing so.

I just hope that GNCAPs translation of forces to protection rating colour code is better than their star rating, else God help us!

Instead of doubting GNCAP, I would rather question the accountability of such sources who are questioning the only available crash test for Indian cars. Although I don't blindly trust the star ratings of GNCAP.

Let's try to understand the business for a moment:

Maruti and Hyundai are the two top manufacturers who have been holding more than 70% of the Indian car market share since long time. They are habitual of selling cars with heavily compromised structures which lead into heavy margin compared to the other manufacturers who chose not to compromise on the structural integrity. Its already proven many times that same model they sell elsewhere has better structure integrity compared to the cardboard grade counterpart sold in India, thats called actual 'DOUBLE STANDARDS'.

Tata, which was written off in the passenger car segment in the last few years suddenly managed to move itself at the third-second positions in the sales charts in last one year. Biggest contributor which helped them doing this was the 'perception of manufacturing safer and stronger cars'. Mahindra also started gaining same reputation along side. Then there are already brands like VW-Skoda which may not have mention worthy sale numbers but they definitely helped in driving the sentiments around importance of safety in the mass segments in last one decade.

Now all this puts threat on the market position and the margins of these two leading car manufacturers who have started getting image of selling 'tin-cans'.

If this perception keeps growing and starts affecting their sales charts then they will also have to start assembling the same grade material in the structures of their cars which they are forced to do in the western countries due to the strict safety norms.

All this will lead into adding more cost. Now either they will have to increase the price or decrease the margins to beat the added cost. It will start putting them away from the competition who are already offering better and safer cars at better price compared to them.

If they don't increase the price despite the additional cost then they will have to reduce their PR expenditures which has always helped them building the image and topping the sales charts.

Right now they can buy any form of PR at any cost to manipulate people's perception which may look legit in the first place, be it anywhere on mainstream media, web media or social media.

But if their current margins start going for toss then how will they manage to pay the PR sources which are currently helping them in shutting those mouths questioning the quality of their cars?

The score or colours don't directly convey how severe the injury is because the dummies cannot represent all humans accurately enough. A simple way to understand it is: the better the colour, the lower the probability of serious worse injury to that body part.

For most body parts the limit for 'good' (4 points) is when the corresponding dummy reading indicates less than a 5% risk of serious, severe or critical injury, and the limit for 'poor' (0 points) is when the corresponding parameter indicates an "unacceptably high" risk of serious or worse injury, different for every body part (printed next to the corresponding limit in the GNCAP protocols).

But in many cases a lower colour/score is caused not by dummy readings but by 'modifiers' that penalise observations that reduce the robustness of the observed risk of injury, eg. unstable airbag contact, excessive intrusion, etc. These are characteristic of consumer tests and many of them are subjective. Here I have a bias towards Global NCAP because their test lab (ADAC) has been involved with Euro NCAP right from the beginning, unlike, say, ASEAN NCAP who, if I may say so, seems very lenient with modifiers.

It is important to know that the type of injury associated with a biomechanical parameter is very specific and may not cover all types of injury possible for the body part, for example the current head protection scoring is based on only skull fracture and not brain injury (which will be introduced by Euro NCAP next week).

To explain it better with the help of the GNCAP protocols, here is what the colours generally mean.


They are funded by charities like the FIA Foundation and Bloomberg Philanthropies.

That is not very surprising. A manufacturer will usually only sponsor testing if their internal testing has revealed good performance. Like a student raising their hand to answer in class when they are confident of the answer.

That is because the Brezza had achieved four stars just a few weeks before. But in general I find the whole concept of titling YouTube videos like a media release ridiculous. A simple title with the name, market and year would do. Try searching for the Tata Altroz's video and you'll find all sorts of videos before you find the official video which does not even have the car name in its title.

Yes, Global NCAP is not very neutral - they have a clear bias towards manufacturers who are consciously making an effort to increase safety and awareness. The best example is indeed how they are giving a pass to the Harrier twins. It is also evident in the way they deny testing the better cars from rogue manufacturers - eg. S Cross. Even the variant choice is heavily biased as higher variants from the 'good boy' manufacturers are taken whereas lowest variants are taken from the 'bad boy' gang.

Still, I would rate this to be just a minor business shrewdness - almost saintly compared to the Hyundai/Kia strategy of giving bling features by skimping on basic safety compared to thier export models.

Whatever awareness that the market today has for safety, it is largely attributable to NCAP tests and the 'biased' videos they publish. We, as a market should be happy for that. Biggest beneficiaries being our own home players is an added bonus.

Writing this on a day when a senior acquaintance died along with three family members who were fellow passengers in a Maruti crash :sadface

Onus is on the two(three) manufacturer to prove that they manufacture structurally safe car for India. Until such time they will be targeted by many people including their rivals. What is surprising here if GNCAP found a weak link ?

I believe that in accordance with their policy, they are permitted to test a higher variant if the safety features are the same across all variants. In some manufacturer-sponsored tests, they were given the higher variants because those vehicles had safety features that were common across all variants.

While their vehicle choice can be debated endlessly, your other points are not entirely correct. They did test the Brezza which scored a good 4 stars and the variant of all vehicles tested is as per the published protocol that is accessible for all to see.

In the old protocol (upto July 2022), the base variant or an equivalent variant that has all the standard safety equipment was used and in the new protocol (post July 2022), since optional equipment carries weightage the relevant variant will also be tested.

Find this thread and the general carping about GNCAP ratings that many do quite strange.

GNCAP follows a clearly laid out protocol while testing cars. That is true for both cars they test independently (such as the Marutis) and cars they test when a manufacturer requests for the same (such as the Tatas). If their testing process was inadequate, you could be sure Maruti and Hyundai would be suing the pants off them. So the rating you get for any car that is tested is certain to be correct. In fact, you can also bet that the ratings are NOT a surprise to any manufacturer- these cars are designed and tested extensively, and the manufacturer surely knows what level of crash protection they are aiming for. For players like Suzuki and Hyundai who sell cars elsewhere and “value engineer” the same for India, they know what level of risk they are introducing and probably can also calculate how many people will die because of the changes they are introducing relative to selling their global product here.

Now on choice of cars that are tested, the fact is that any manufacturer whose cars are likely to get good results will pay for the cars to be tested. Consequently, it is cars from players like Maruti and Hyundai which are likely to fail tests that will get picked up for suo moto testing. That is not a surprise either. Should GNCAP go and pick up the Safari for testing? The fact is that I have not seen them pick any ₹20 l car for random testing but perhaps I am wrong. And when Tata is supporting them through tests for various other products, I am not surprised they don’t go out and spend their own money on making a Tata the first ₹20 l
car they test.

Finally, asking for the Bolero or Ambassador to be tested is a joke - these are old platforms, and clearly won’t meet modern standards. If Maruti were still selling the 800, I don’t think anyone would expect it to meet crash standards - it is the failure of brand new cars which is a cause for concern.

Vivekji05 and JayD has spotted these discrepancies even before MotorBeam thinks about it and has documented it as a video on their channel Talking Cars (audio in malayalam)

Sharing the link :
https://youtu.be/gm_SwWegHz8

On the other side, the discrepancies makes me think that GNCAP is a smart business. But it has alteast gave us some reference to measure safety and realise that cars which looks safer for experts (remember our Seltos review?), fare very bad in crashes. We have also seen few manufacturers going safe route as a differentiator and safety coming to budget cars as well - which is great,IMHO.

Yes I think the GNCAP ratings are trust worthy, they are transparent and every aspect of the outcomes are made public, so there is a high level of acceptance. But then for me it is the other aspects that matter.

If it is about ensuring safety then keep the standards same for all may it be manufacturer sponsored vehicle or GNCAP procured ones.
At least use the same variant, probably base variant for every vehicle tested.
Higher variant can be an added option, but testing the base variant should be a must!
I really do not like their biased way of narrating the outcome.

But then we all know, at the end it is a business, 'Not for Profit' doesn't really mean 'Not for Earning" they do make money, just that the profits are not handed over to the directors or owners, but yes their salary components are 'FAT' so it doesn't really matter.

On a brighter side the GNCAP is a good indicator for a cars safety, at least better than tapping on the cars bonnet and judging the build quality based on the sound of the sheet metal.

IIRC this is a manufacturer's choice. Crash rating is not a mandatory requirement. It costs to test.

Joke of the decade it is. Tata decided to say that Harrier is safe because it didn't suffer damage when multiple harriers crashed into Spressos. Seems like Harriers have problems (not joking) in seeing tiny cars due to the blind spot by the high bonnet and the low seat. And Bhargava doesn't joke when Maruti invests into Maruti Driving school which will reduce the number of accidents rather than safe cars for india. "Safe drivers for India" is the need of the hour


Rest of the things are how you use data to convey a point. Happens in all walks of life. User discretion is advised.

Other than that the load cases have a very sound research, which is commendable to arrive at the particular speed, stiffness of the concrete block, and other stuff. It covers 80% of the accident scenarios, rest 20% are the will of God.

Laid out protocol they keep changing by the year and modify rating methods. Not to forget switching from independent testing of base model cars to now colluding with manufacturers to test top variant cars when they aren't even on sale to public just so that the manufacturer can launch car with Gncap rating as promotional material. Where's the guarantee that the manufacturer has not sent a pre production mule for testing purpose and then alters the production line once the rating is out? Before you say it is far fetched you may want to see some of the Tbhp reviews where reviewers say XYZ manufacturer has promised them to resolve the "niggles" in production models and that their test drive cars are "pre production" models.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. If any manufacturer whose cars are likely to get good results will pay for the cars to be tested, why aren't the home heroes Tata and Mahindra getting the Scorpio classic/Bolero Neo/Harrier/Safaris tested? Are you saying these two brands are just as guilty as Maruti and Hyundai because the Scorpio scored 0 stars last time around which is less than a Creta or Seltos score of 3. As for the price bracket, why would Gncap have to spend 20l? A base Harrier is 14lakhs. Scorpio Neo is 9.4lakhs. if they can spend 10.5l to test Seltos and Creta what is another 3lakhs considering they just randomly picked 3 outdated Suzuki cars worth 15l for a pointless test?

Didnt they just test the Ignis, s presso and Swift last week? What was the point of that test then? The Scorpio classic and Bolero Neo and the Harrier twins are still on sale. They're not that old as M800 no? rl:

Mr. Bhargava asked a valid question. Who funds these Ncaps? And why is it they have no budget to test cars from 5 star car manufacturers or should we ask why 5 star manufacturers send select models for testing? Is it because unlike the yet to be launched models, the current cars on sale can't have their production line modified to send a mule for crash testing?

What is strange is how for some models, the rating is based on base variant test results, for others it’s mid/top spec.

Global NCAP should consistently pick the base variant for all tests, so customers know that (a) regardless of which variant they pick they get the stated safety rating and (b) buyers can compare models in an apples-to-apples manner.

I guess the title of this thread can be a bit misleading. The ratings for sure are reliable, may be there is very minor error as with most testing practice, but by far the results are definitely reliable and is helping buyers to pick safer cars.

What does not seem reliable or rather unethical is NCAP's ways of picking cars, selecting variants, showcasing results etc. We know Bolero is going to score poor, but why pick 3 Maruti cars when we all know they fared poor in terms of safety and there is no update? Instead they could have picked 6 airbag Baleno or Tiago. The Tiago may score 2 or 3 stars against 1 star of Ignis/Swift. I hope NCAP quickly tests competition too. This will present a fair results to buyers which appears heavily biased for now as some manufacturers are still claiming ratings based on old regime.